HA THANH NGUYEN ALIASES TRAN MANH CUONG & HA ANH TUAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 319/2025, [2026] HKCA 41

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1696

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 319 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3820 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 28 October 2025.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 4 November 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant repeated that he would be harmed or killed if he returned to Vietnam, stated that it is completely unfeasible for him to relocate within his country, and claimed that the Immigration Department had not considered his human rights.  His written submissions outlined the history of his non-refoulement claim and set out certain passages from cases and assertions.

3.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

4.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

5.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.